The Consequences Of Beyond Good And Evil

An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy

A common phrase that many people learn in their youth is “never judge a book by its cover.” This figure of speech is usually meant to teach others to give something a chance before immediately dismissing it; however, the phrase can also take on a darker interpretation and be used as a warning to not trust everything that meets the eye. Miss Adela Strangeworth in Shirley Jackson’s “The Possibility of Evil” lives up to the dark irony of that phrase as the story unfolds. Jackson uses irony throughout many elements of her story to illustrate how evil can be masked by an amiable façade.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher in the 1800’s. His work has since influenced, impacted, and brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. One of Nietzsche’s famous writings Beyond Good and Evil expresses his views on society and the two different classes it holds, slave and master. He expresses his belief that the two are in warfare with one another, the strong (master) fighting for the will to power, while the weak (slave) tries to pull the master down to their level using clandestine forms of revenge. Nietzsche believed the slave morality was one that included humility, obedience, and submission, and was the destructive choice and attribute of Christianity, while the master morality was full of arrogance and pride

In my opinion, some of the essential idea in Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” is his search for the truth. He believed everyone had the ability to explore truth in their own specific way. In Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” he also believes that self – preservation is not the main ambition of human beings but the fundamental creative force that motivates all creations is the “will to power”(122). Furthermore, Friedrich Nietzsche did not believe in the existence of God, to him, God was dead. God plays no vital role in our culture- except as a protector of the slaves morality, including the idea of equal worth of all persons (122).

Righting society’s wrongs is like confessing something that was keeping you up all night, relieving. For example, seeing someone being bullied and stepping to for the bully for the victim feels so good once you’ve truly realized how much you’ve really impacted the person’s life. A good deal of individuals in society have the mentality that it is not their responsibility to right society’s wrongs, if the Confederates had that mentality we would still have slavery in the United States. It shows in multiple places how it is society responsibility to right society’s wrongs even in the move “John Q”.

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

In this essay I will be discussing the topic of Nietzsche’s contrast of Good-Bad Morality with Good-Evil morality. The argument that I will be imposing is that despite Nietzsche contrasting view on both Good-Bad morality with Good-Evil morality they are the same as it is just peoples view on them that has led them to think that they are different from each other. In the first essay by Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals, he explains both how the words good and bad become defined and how they have changed over time through people’s perception. I will use quotes to support my argument that Good-Bad morality and Good-Evil morality is not contrasting but rather just the change in people’s perspective that has brought the false perspective of thinking

Ever since the inception of his writings, Nietzsche has been pointed to and predominately described as an atheist, however within the work, Beyond Good and Evil, it is revealed otherwise. Nietzsche considers several different roles for religion in past, present, and future polities. The roles that religion play within Nietzsche’s vision of a future creation and establishment of world-affirming values is dependent upon the class of the individual. It is found in the various sections of The religious character within Beyond Good and Evil, that religion can be utilized by different classes of people for different world affirmations. The high ranking officials are able to use religion as a tool to relate and control their subjects, while the middle

Attempting to explain morality Nietzsche appeals to social structure and psychology. He argues that humans naturally exploit each other, and of the many ways this occurs aristocratic castes are the most relevant. Aristocratic societies create a dichotomy in which those deemed noble rule over the commoners. From this dichotomy, good and evil arise.

Nietzsche had started to consider the problem of the origin of “Good and Evil” when he was very young. He correlated the Good and the Evil, these two different kinds of people together, for example, the master and the slave, the noble and the missionary. From Nietzsche’s perspective, he believed that one of the differences between masters’ and slaves’ morality was that they acquired their values in different adjustments. As Nietzsche said “slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance – this essential orientation to the outside instead of back onto itself – is a feature of resentment: in order to come about, slave morality

cause for these desires to exist in the first place. Finally (Spinoza says), people are always

Nietzsche in the text pays particular attention to an ‘English’ psychologist called Paul Rée who wrote a book called The Origin of the Moral Sensations. In this book Rée explains his theory of the origin of morality where he believes that the concepts of good and evil came from social judgement and conditioning where selfish actions were disapproved of by society and selfless actions were approved of by society and this eventually just became habit and this is where our conceptions of good and evil come

Nietzsche says that every person and every society have different views on what is good and bad. So he believed that one must look “Beyond Good and Evil” to entertain the idea that both extremes, and the variants in between, may be part of being human. There’s no absolute truth. He opposed the whole idea of Christian morality; he saw its stress on charity and kindness as a “celebration of weakness”. So he believes that

In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Friedrich Nietzsche analyzes in a philosophical way what makes one good or evil. He goes onto explaining the spiritual aspect of one’s self and how everything else flows from it, from one’s spirit – from the inside. Also, he points out the challenges and struggle one faces when choosing to follow one’s own convictions instead of the ones imposed onto us. I’ll go onto analyzing his choice of words, their meaning in his arguments and how I relate his philosophy to my own.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses how he is not a believer in democracy. The principles of democracy were put together by levelers, or people that believe in democracy. These principles lead to equality that restrains life to one universal truth and Nietzsche did not agree with this idea at all. He believed that these principles caused people to form into one large herd. In this herd, people follow one another with no will to power, which results in the downfall of individual rights and instincts. This makes the herd the definition of morality in society, which Nietzsche disagrees with. But he brings up the idea of neighbor love. Neighbor love is the idea that we are all in one herd so we are all equal which creates us to all